Research in Higher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 387–411 | Cite as

Investigating the causal association between unionism and organizational effectiveness

  • Kim S. Cameron


In an earlier study, a negative relationship was found between faculty unionism and organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. No research, however, has ever investigated potential causality in this relationship, that is, whether ineffectiveness leads to unionism or whether unionism leads to ineffectiveness. This study relies on assessments of organizational effectiveness in a sample of 4-year institutions in 1976, 1980, and 1983 to investigate the potential causal directionality of these two factors. The results of the analyses suggest that ineffectiveness leads to unionism, but that once unionized, organizational effectiveness does not seem to improve.


Negative Relationship Education Research Causal Association Causal Directionality Organizational Effectiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alpert, Daniel (1983). Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the American research university. Working paper. Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Baldridge, J. Victor, Curtis, David V., Ecker, George, and Riley, Gary L. (1978).Policy Making and Effective Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Baldridge, J. Victor, and Tierney, Michael L. (1979).New Approaches to Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Baldridge, J. Victor, Kemerer, Frank R., and Associates (1981).Assessing the Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. T., and Johnson, M. J. (1979).Demographic Trends in Higher Education: Collective Bargaining and Forced Unionism? Los Angeles: International Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, Robert (1974). Unionization and faculty compensation.Educational Record 55: 29–33.Google Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, Robert (1976). Unionism and faculty compensation. Part 2.Educational Record 57: 116–118.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, Robert (1980).Creative Academic Bargaining: Managing Conflict in the Unionized College and University. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, Robert (1983). Personal communication, 19 November.Google Scholar
  10. Birnbaum, Robert, and Inham, Deborah (1983).The effect of faculty collective bargaining on campus climate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, W. W., and Stone, C. C. (1977). Academic unions in higher education: Impacts on faculty salary, compensation, and promotions.Economic Inquiry 15: 385–396.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, Kim S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education.Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 604–632.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, Kim S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities.Academy of Management Journal 24: 25–47.Google Scholar
  14. Cameron, Kim S. (1982). The relationship between faculty unionism and organizational effectiveness.Academy of Management Journal 25: 6–24.Google Scholar
  15. Cameron, Kim S. (1983). An empirical investigation of the multiple constituencies model of organizational effectiveness. Working paper. Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, Kim S. (in press). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors.Management Science 32 (1986): to appear.Google Scholar
  17. Cameron, Kim S., and Chaffee, E. E. (1984). The aftermath of decline. Working paper. Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, Donald T. (1963). From description to experimentation: Interpreting trends as quasi-experiments. In C. W. Harris (ed.),Problems in Measuring Change. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. (1963).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  20. Carr, Robert K., and VanEyck, Daniel K. (1973).Collective Bargaining Comes to the Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  21. Chaffee, E. E. (1984). Successful strategic management in small private colleges.Journal of Higher Education 55: 212–241.Google Scholar
  22. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice.Sociology 6: 2–21.Google Scholar
  23. Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., and Wall, T. D. (1977). The potential of cross-lagged correlation analysis in field research.Journal of Occupational Psychology 50: 177–196.Google Scholar
  24. Crano, William D., Kenny, David A., and Campbell, Donald T. (1972). Does intelligence cause achievement?: A cross-lagged panel analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 258–275.Google Scholar
  25. Duryea, E. D., Fisk, R. S., and Associates (1973).Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Garbarino, Joseph W. (1975).Faculty Bargaining: Change and Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Gilmore, Carol B. (1981). The impact of faculty collective bargaining on the management of public higher educational institutions.Journal of Collective Negotiations 10: 145–152.Google Scholar
  28. Guthrie-Morse, Barbara, Leslie, Larry L., and Hu, Teh-Wel (1981). Assessing the impact of faculty unions: The financial implication of collective bargaining.Journal of Higher Education 52: 237–255.Google Scholar
  29. Hedgepeth, R. C. (1974). Consequences of collective bargaining in higher education.Journal of Higher Education 45: 691–705.Google Scholar
  30. Kavanagh, M. J., MacKinney, A. C., and Wolins, L. (1971). Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of ratings.Psychological Bulletin 75: 34–49.Google Scholar
  31. Keavenly, T. J., and Allen, R. E. (1979). The impact of unions on the structure of faculty compensation at public universities. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  32. Kemerer, Frank R., and Baldridge, J. Victor (1975).Unions on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Kenny, David A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness.Psychological Bulletin 82: 887–903.Google Scholar
  34. Kenny, David A., and Harackiewski, Judith M. (1979). Cross-lagged panel correlation: Practice and promise.Journal of Applied Psychology 64: 372–379.Google Scholar
  35. Kerr, Clark (1980). Introduction. In Robert Birnbaum (ed.),Creative Academic Bargaining. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ladd, Everett C., and Lipset, Seymour Martin (1978). Effects of unionism on higher education. In G. L. Riley and J. V. Baldridge (eds.),Governing Academic Organizations. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  37. Lombardi, John (1979). Changing administrative relations under collective bargaining.Junior College Resource Review. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information.Google Scholar
  38. March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958).Organizations. Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Moore, Arnold J. (1981). Collective bargaining in higher education: Its impact on leadership styles, quality faculty, and programs. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Detroit.Google Scholar
  40. Morgan, D. R., and Kearney, R. C. (1977). Collective bargaining and faculty compensation.Sociology of Education 50: 28–39.Google Scholar
  41. Mortimer, Kenneth P. (1975).Research Data on Tenure and Governance under Collective Bargaining. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.Google Scholar
  42. Naples, Ceasar J., Caruthers, J. Kent, and Naples, Alexandra J. (1978). Faculty collective bargaining: Implications for academic performance and vitality. In Wayne R. Kirschling (ed.),Evaluating Faculty Performance and Vitality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Pennings, J. M., and Goodman, P. S. (1977). Toward a workable framework. In P. S. Goodman and J. M. Pennings (eds.),New Direction in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. Peters, C. C., and Van Voohris, W. R. (1940).Statistical Procedures and Their Mathematical Bases. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Randolph, W. Alan (1981). Cross-lagged correlational analysis in dynamic settings.Journal of Applied Psychology 66: 431–436.Google Scholar
  46. Richardson, Richard C., and Mortimer, Kenneth P. (1978). Collective bargaining and the redefinition of administrative roles.Education Records 59: 332–344.Google Scholar
  47. Shanker, Albert (1978). Unions and the academic enterprise. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  48. Staw, B. M. and Szwajkowski (1975). The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts.Administrative Science Quarterly 20: 345–359.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, J. D. (1967).Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Tsui, Anne S., and Karwan, Kirk R. (1983). Managerial effectiveness and organizational performance: A test of causality. Presented at the Academy of Management meetings, Dallas.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, Bennie J., Holley, William H., and Martin, John S. (1983). Effects of faculty unions on administrators' attitudes toward issues in higher education.Journal of Collective Negotiations 12: 33–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim S. Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Business Administration and Center for the Study of Higher EducationThe University of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations